Wakilii

Stanbic Bank Uganda Ltd v Global Scientific Supplies Ltd (Misc. Application No.1047 of 2025)

High Court · [2025] UGCOMMC 230 · 2025 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to vary temporary injunction order granted in earlier interlocutory proceedings arising from civil suit
Decision
Temporary injunction order varied to require respondent to pay 30% security deposit within 30 days, with injunction contingent on compliance

Observed later treatment

No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.

Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains good law.

AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions—always read the source judgment before relying on it.

Holding

The court held that where a temporary injunction is granted to adjourn the sale of mortgaged property under Regulation 13(1) of the Mortgage Regulations 2012, payment of a 30% security deposit is mandatory, not discretionary. The court varied the earlier order which had granted the injunction but declined to impose the security deposit requirement, finding that the Registrar erred in separating the two components of Regulation 13(1). The respondent was ordered to pay 30% of the outstanding loan balance within 30 days, with the injunction contingent on compliance.

Outcome

Temporary injunction order varied to require respondent to pay 30% security deposit within 30 days, with injunction contingent on compliance

Facts

Stanbic Bank Uganda Ltd granted a loan to Global Scientific Supplies Ltd secured by mortgages over five properties. When the respondent defaulted, the bank sought to recover UGX 1,101,226,849. The respondent filed a civil suit seeking a permanent injunction restraining the bank from selling the mortgaged properties. The respondent then obtained a temporary injunction in Miscellaneous Application No. 1149 of 2019, but the Registrar declined to order the respondent to pay a 30% security deposit, citing uncertainty over the constitutionality of provisions in the Financial Act. Following a Constitutional Court decision in Ferdsult Engineering Services Ltd affirming the constitutionality of Regulation 13 of the Mortgage Regulations 2012, the bank applied to vary the temporary injunction order to require the 30% security deposit.

Issues

  1. Whether the order of temporary injunction made in Miscellaneous Application No. 1149 of 2019 should be discharged, varied, or set aside?

Orders

  • Application allowed.
  • Order in Miscellaneous Application No. 1149 of 2019 varied.
  • Respondent to pay 30% security deposit of UGX 1,101,226,849 within 30 days of this decision.
  • Duration of the injunction contingent on compliance with the payment order.
  • Costs of this application to abide the result of the main suit.

Rules and key headnotes

Temporary Injunctions — Variation of Orders — Regulation 13 Mortgage Regulations 2012
Under Regulation 13(1) of the Mortgage Regulations 2012, where a court exercises its discretion to adjourn the sale of mortgaged property, the payment of a 30% security deposit of the forced sale value or outstanding amount is mandatory, not discretionary. The provision is a comprehensive measure addressing stoppage and adjournment as a single conditional relief.
Temporary Injunctions — Discharge, Variation or Setting Aside — Order 41 Rule 4 CPR
Under Order 41 Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules, any party dissatisfied with an order granting an injunction may apply to have the order discharged, varied or set aside. There is no qualification to the power granted to the court under the rule, and the court is not constrained by whether the party should file an appeal or apply for review.
Mortgage Enforcement — Security Deposit Requirement — Interpretation of Regulation 13(1)
Regulation 13(1) of the Mortgage Regulations 2012 does not consist of two separate components requiring a mortgagor to demonstrate eligibility for adjournment and a mortgagee for the 30% relief. The adjournment of sale is discretionary, but where granted, it is contingent upon payment of the 30% security deposit. The use of the word 'upon' imposes a condition that triggers a subsequent action.
Mortgage Enforcement — Policy Rationale — Pay Now, Argue Later Principle
Regulation 13 of the Mortgage Regulations 2012 enacts the principle 'pay now, argue later' and is designed to restrict the ability of mortgagors to use litigation vexatiously to delay realisation of money due to the mortgagee. The 30% deposit is the applicant's warranty that the law will uphold the issuance of the injunction.
Temporary Injunctions — Discretion Under Regulation 13(6) — Spouse Applications
It is only under Regulation 13(6) of the Mortgage Regulations 2012 that discretion is conferred on the court to determine whether the 30% security deposit requirement should be imposed. This provision applies where the application is by the spouse of a mortgagor, and the court may consider factors such as duration of cohabitation, financial resources, availability of alternative accommodation, presence of children, and whether the property serves as the matrimonial home.

Legislation cited (8)

Cases cited (12)

  • Robert Kavuma v Hotel International Limited (SCCA No. 08 of 1990)
  • Ferdsult Engineering Services Ltd & Anor v Attorney General & Ors (Constitutional Petition No. 18 of 2021)
  • Ganafa Peter Kisawuzi v DFCU Bank Ltd (Civil Application No. 64 of 2016)
  • Kingston Enterprises Ltd & Others v Standard Chartered Bank (U) Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 1050 of 2020)
  • Haji Edirisa Kasule and another v Housing Finance Bank Ltd and two others (Misc. Application No. 667 of 2013)
  • Guaranty Trust Bank (U) Ltd v Ankole Riverline Hotel Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 28 of 2014)
  • Paunocks Enterprises Ltd and others v Stanbic Bank (U) Ltd (Misc. Application No. 1113 of 2014)
  • Haruna Sentongo v I&M Bank (Uganda) Limited (Civil Application No. 003 of 2005)
  • G.S Royal Hardware and Industries Ltd and another v Equity Bank (U) Ltd and another (Misc. Application No. 721 of 2015)
  • Parul Ben Barot v Victoria Finance Company Ltd (Misc. Application No. 319 of 2017)
  • Alpha2 Business Company Ltd v Diamond Trust Bank Ltd and two others (Misc. Civil Application No. 71 of 2016)
  • Housing Financing Bank Limited v Silk Events Limited and Another (Civil Appeal No. 0300 of 2021)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.

Stanbic Bank Uganda Ltd v Global Scientific Supplies Ltd (Misc. Application No.1047 of 2025) [2025] UGCommC 230 (4 July 2025)
Source: this page presents Wakilii’s issue analysis and metadata for a publicly reported Ugandan judgment. Any AI-generated summary is marked as such. Judgment text is sourced from the Uganda Legal Information Institute (ulii.org). Wakilii is not affiliated with ULII.